Celia Moore

Workplace harassment: double jeopardy for minority women.

To date there have been no studies of how both sex and ethnicity might affect the incidence of both sexual and ethnic harassment at work. This article represents an effort to fill this gap. Data from employees at 5 organizations were used to test whether minority women are subject to double jeopardy at work, experiencing the most harassment because they are both women and members of a minority group. The results supported this prediction. Women experienced more sexual harassment than men, minorities experienced more ethnic harassment than Whites, and minority women experienced more harassment overall than majority men, minority men, and majority women.

Squires: Key followers and the social facilitation of charismatic leadership

Drawing on several theoretical traditions in the social sciences, we offer a theory of the social facilitation of charismatic leadership by introducing the concept of squires. Squires are key followers who serve four social facilitation functions: liberating and legitimizing, modeling, buffering, and interpreting and translating. Liberating and legitimizing builds on social conformity research. Modeling is based in the social learning and social influence literatures. Buffering, and interpreting and translating, draw on insights from the psychology of power and organizational theory. These functions help resolve two central charismatic leadership paradoxes: (a) the need to be different from followers, though followers prefer to be led by leaders who are like them, and (b) the need to be personally inspiring to followers while being socially distant from them. In specifying squires’ functions, we also address three weaknesses in conceptions of followership and contribute to understandings of how charismatic leadership emerges, works, and endures.

Dangerous Expectations: Breaking Rules to Resolve Cognitive Dissonance

When entering task performance contexts we generally have expectations about both the task and how well we will perform on it. When those expectations go unmet, we experience psychological discomfort (cognitive dissonance), which we are then motivated to resolve. Prior research on expectancy disconfirmation in task performance contexts has focused on the dysfunctional consequences of disconfirming low performance expectations (i.e., stereotype threat). In this paper we focus on the dysfunctional consequences of disconfirming high performance expectations. In three studies, we find that individuals are more likely to break rules if they have been led to expect that achieving high levels of performance will be easy rather than difficult, even if breaking rules means behaving unethically. We show that this willingness to break rules is not due to differences in legitimate performance as a function of how easy people expect the task to be, or whether their expectations are set explicitly (by referring to others’ performance) or implicitly (as implied by their own prior performance). Instead, using a misattribution paradigm, we show that cognitive dissonance triggered by unmet expectations drives our effects.

Respectful or Rude? How Small Differences in Negative Emotional Expression Affect Individuals in Teams and Team Viability

Teamwork has advantages (e.g., coordination), but also presents challenges of interdependence (e.g., social loafing), which can make teamwork frustrating. Expressing frustration (a negative emotion) with another team member can motivate better performance, but can also backfire, triggering outcomes with serious implications for the team’s viability, such as withdrawal and reduced cooperation. We argue that how negative emotions are expressed in these contexts can mitigate the potential negative consequences for the team’s viability. In two studies (one vignette and one interactive group experiment) we investigate how expressing one’s frustration respectfully (versus rudely) triggers affective and inferential processes that differentially influence team member reactions (withdrawal, evaluations, willingness to work together) to the expresser as well as to other team members uninvolved in the dyadic emotional interaction. Our findings suggest that expressing negative emotions respectfully can convey both frustration and dissatisfaction while mitigating the potential negative consequences for team viability.

Leaders Matter Morally: The Role of Ethical Leadership in Shaping Employee Moral Cognition and Misconduct

There has long been interest in how leaders influence the unethical behavior of those who they lead. However, research in this area has tended to focus on leaders’ direct influence over subordinate behavior, such as through role modeling or eliciting positive social exchange. We extend this research by examining how ethical leaders affect how employees construe morally problematic decisions, ultimately influencing their behavior. Across four studies, diverse in methods (lab and field) and national context (the United States and China), we find that ethical leadership decreases employees’ propensity to morally disengage, with ultimate effects on employees’ unethical decisions and deviant behavior. Further, employee moral identity moderates this mediated effect. However, the form of this moderation is not consistent. In Studies 2 and 4, we find that ethical leaders have the largest positive influence over individuals with a weak moral identity (providing a “saving grace”), whereas in Study 3, we find that ethical leaders have the largest positive influence over individuals with a strong moral identity (catalyzing a “virtuous synergy”). We use these findings to speculate about when ethical leaders might function as a “saving grace” versus a “virtuous synergy.” Together, our results suggest that employee misconduct stems from a complex interaction between employees, their leaders, and the context in which this relationship takes place, specifically via leaders’ influence over employees’ moral cognition.

The advantage of being oneself: The role of applicant self-verification in organizational hiring decisions.

In this paper, we explore whether individuals who strive to self-verify flourish or flounder on the job market. Using placement data from 2 very different field samples, we found that individuals rated by the organization as being in the top 10% of candidates were significantly more likely to receive a job offer if they have a stronger drive to self-verify. A third study, using a quasi-experimental design, explored the mechanism behind this effect and tested whether individuals who are high and low on this disposition communicate differently in a structured mock job interview. Text analysis (LIWC) of interview transcripts revealed systematic differences in candidates’ language use as a function of their self-verification drives. These differences led an expert rater to perceive candidates with a strong drive to self-verify as less inauthentic and less misrepresentative than their low self-verifying peers, making her more likely to recommend these candidates for a job. Taken together, our results suggest that authentic self-presentation is an unidentified route to success on the job market, amplifying the chances that high-quality candidates can convert organizations’ positive evaluations into tangible job offers. We discuss implications for job applicants, organizations, and the labor market.

When the tables are turned: The effects of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election on in-group favoritism and out-group hostility

The outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election was a big surprise to many, as the majority of polls had predicted the opposite outcome. In this two-stage cross-sectional study, we focus on how Democrats and Republicans reacted to this electoral surprise and how these reactions might have influenced the way they allocated resources to each other in small groups. We find that, before the election, Republicans showed greater in-group favoritism than Democrats, who treated others equally, regardless of their political affiliation. We then show that Democrats experienced the election outcome as an ego shock and, in the week following the election, reported significantly higher levels of negative emotions and lower levels of self-esteem than Republicans. These reactions then predicted how individuals’ decided to allocate resources to others: after the election, Republicans no longer showed in-group favoritism, while Democrats showed out-group derogation. We find these decisions when the tables were turned can be partially explained by differences in participants’ state self-esteem.

Reactance to transgressors: why authorities deliver harsher penalties when the social context elicits expectations of leniency

This paper combines experimental and field data to examine how authorities with discretion over how rules are enforced penalize transgressors when the social context of the transgression elicits expectations of leniency. Specifically, we test how transgressors are punished when it is their birthday: a day that triggers expectations of lenient treatment. First, in three scenario studies we explore individuals’ intuitions about how they would behave and expect to be treated if they transgressed on their birthdays, as well as how they would imagine penalizing a birthday transgressor. Second, using more than 134,000 arrest records for drunk driving in Washington State, we establish that police officers penalize drivers more harshly when it is their birthday. Then, in a lab experiment in which we grant participants discretion over enforcing the rules of an essay-writing contest, we test psychological reactance toward transgressors who make their birthday salient, even subtly, as the mechanism behind this increased stringency. We rule out several alternative explanations for this effect, including public safety concerns, negative affect and overcompensation for bias. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of our findings for the literatures on punishment, rule-breaking, and legal transgressions.